These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

460 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29710787)

  • 1. Is It Reliable to Take the Molecular Docking Top Scoring Position as the Best Solution without Considering Available Structural Data?
    Ramírez D; Caballero J
    Molecules; 2018 Apr; 23(5):. PubMed ID: 29710787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Towards predictive docking at aminergic G-protein coupled receptors.
    Jakubík J; El-Fakahany EE; Doležal V
    J Mol Model; 2015 Nov; 21(11):284. PubMed ID: 26453085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Boosted neural networks scoring functions for accurate ligand docking and ranking.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2018 Apr; 16(2):1850004. PubMed ID: 29495922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Machine learning in computational docking.
    Khamis MA; Gomaa W; Ahmed WF
    Artif Intell Med; 2015 Mar; 63(3):135-52. PubMed ID: 25724101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. RosettaLigand docking with full ligand and receptor flexibility.
    Davis IW; Baker D
    J Mol Biol; 2009 Jan; 385(2):381-92. PubMed ID: 19041878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Docking pose selection by interaction pattern graph similarity: application to the D3R grand challenge 2015.
    Slynko I; Da Silva F; Bret G; Rognan D
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):669-683. PubMed ID: 27480696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark.
    Fourches D; Politi R; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jan; 55(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 25521713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Improving docking results via reranking of ensembles of ligand poses in multiple X-ray protein conformations with MM-GBSA.
    Greenidge PA; Kramer C; Mozziconacci JC; Sherman W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2697-717. PubMed ID: 25266271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms.
    Kontoyianni M; McClellan LM; Sokol GS
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(3):558-65. PubMed ID: 14736237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Prospective evaluation of shape similarity based pose prediction method in D3R Grand Challenge 2015.
    Kumar A; Zhang KY
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):685-693. PubMed ID: 27484214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.
    Perola E; Walters WP; Charifson PS
    Proteins; 2004 Aug; 56(2):235-49. PubMed ID: 15211508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Efficient conformational sampling and weak scoring in docking programs? Strategy of the wisdom of crowds.
    Chaput L; Mouawad L
    J Cheminform; 2017 Jun; 9(1):37. PubMed ID: 29086077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Performance of Several Docking Programs at Reproducing Protein-Macrolide-Like Crystal Structures.
    Castro-Alvarez A; Costa AM; Vilarrasa J
    Molecules; 2017 Jan; 22(1):. PubMed ID: 28106755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.
    Wang Z; Sun H; Yao X; Li D; Xu L; Li Y; Tian S; Hou T
    Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2016 May; 18(18):12964-75. PubMed ID: 27108770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. EADock: docking of small molecules into protein active sites with a multiobjective evolutionary optimization.
    Grosdidier A; Zoete V; Michielin O
    Proteins; 2007 Jun; 67(4):1010-25. PubMed ID: 17380512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Rescoring of docking poses under Occam's Razor: are there simpler solutions?
    Zhenin M; Bahia MS; Marcou G; Varnek A; Senderowitz H; Horvath D
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Sep; 32(9):877-888. PubMed ID: 30173397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. AutoDock-GIST: Incorporating Thermodynamics of Active-Site Water into Scoring Function for Accurate Protein-Ligand Docking.
    Uehara S; Tanaka S
    Molecules; 2016 Nov; 21(11):. PubMed ID: 27886114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A pose prediction approach based on ligand 3D shape similarity.
    Kumar A; Zhang KY
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Jun; 30(6):457-69. PubMed ID: 27379501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Is It Reliable to Use Common Molecular Docking Methods for Comparing the Binding Affinities of Enantiomer Pairs for Their Protein Target?
    Ramírez D; Caballero J
    Int J Mol Sci; 2016 Apr; 17(4):. PubMed ID: 27104528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Knowledge-guided docking: accurate prospective prediction of bound configurations of novel ligands using Surflex-Dock.
    Cleves AE; Jain AN
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2015 Jun; 29(6):485-509. PubMed ID: 25940276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.